Yes but that just brings me back to the key point that Mrs Maxwell's evidence WAS tested by an interrogation by the police and coroner, and survived that interrogation, yet that still doesn't satisfy you.

This is despite Mrs Maxwell's sightings not being contradicted by any medical or witness evidence.

Further Mrs Maxwell's inquest evidence was, I think, consistent not only with her witness statement but with two interviews she gave to newspaper reporters.

The problem I have is seeing any good reason to disbelieve her.

Hi David,

I need more time to consider this before giving a detailed response. However, I would say that to a certain extent it's down to instinct. Thus, I believe Fleetwood Mac argued that Kellly was probably killed in her bed, which I agree with. That would tend to support the argument that she was killed during the night or early hours of the morning. Of course, the problem is Maxwell referred to Kelly being ill, so that could explain why she was in bed mid-morning, as could sleeping off a hangover!

I also think I need to revisited the studies on gastric emptying times to try and determine the likelihood of Kelly being killed after, say, 10:00am-there have been many studies in this area, so I'm a little surprised that no one noticed my error on the other thread when I suggested there was a dearth of studies!

Hi David
If Kelly was killed in the day time morning-what do you make of the burnt clothes in the fireplace?
Who do you think threw them in and why?
And when? It must have been some time after 10:00am,no?

__________________"Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"
-Edgar Allan Poe

"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."
-Frederick G. Abberline

Hi David
If Kelly was killed in the day time morning-what do you make of the burnt clothes in the fireplace?
Who do you think threw them in and why?
And when? It must have been some time after 10:00am,no?

Hi Abby, there's got to be a chance that the killer mutilated Kelly while naked so as to keep blood off his clothes. Abberline assumed the clothing was burnt for the purposes of light but it could equally have been for heat. If the murder was committed some time after 10:00am then, yes, assuming that Kelly didn't do it herself to keep warm during the night, it must have been done some time after 10:00am.

I re-discovered some interesting new information yesterday while looking again at the report of the Kelly murder in the London Evening Post of 9 November 1888. It was in their "Special Edition" which was probably printed or sold at about 7pm. (I transcribed and posted the entire report in a thread "Kelly murder in the Evening Post" in the Victims/MJK section on 15.02.15 - http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=8685).

At the end of its report about the Kelly murder, which included the Press Association story about Morris Lewis having seen "the woman leave the house and return with some milk", the following paragraph appears:

"The most extraordinary rumours are about as to the hour when the woman was last seen alive. One man has informed our representative that he was in the court at eight o’clock this morning when he saw Kelly go out for the purpose of fetching some milk. Two women aver that they saw her in a public-house, drinking with a man. This was between ten and half-past, but the persons residing in the public house state that they have no recollection of her, and the point is rendered the more difficult through Kelly not being generally known."

So here we have independent confirmation from an Evening Post reporter (not the Press Association rep) that he has personally spoken to a man - presumably Lewis - who said that he saw Kelly go out for some milk at 8am. Then he has also spoken to, or been told about, "Two women" who saw Kelly drinking in a public house with a man between 10 and 10.30 am.

We can then see that the reporter has spoken to people living in (presumably) the Britannia who told him they had no recollection of Kelly but he makes the point that identification was difficult because Kelly was not generally known. This might, perhaps, be the source of the information in Paul Begg's 2004 book cited by John G in the other thread in which the denial was said to have been in rather stronger terms.

Going back then to my previous post on the subject, why did the third press association report of 9 November, which included the Lewis sighting, not refer to the name of the victim? If Lewis had seen Kelly and told the reporter this, why was that information not included in the report?

Funnily enough, before seeing the Evening Post report yesterday, it had already occurred to me that there was no way that the Press Association would name the victim as Mary Jane Kelly on the basis of what its reporter had been told by a passing tailor. If they had got it wrong, and MJK was still very much alive, it would have been hugely embarrassing for that agency. So, even if Lewis had said, "Yes, I've been told it's Mary Jane Kelly who was murdered and I saw her going for milk at 8am", the P.A. reporter would probably not have included the name in his report out of an abundance of caution until he received official confirmation of the victim's name.

This would explain a couple of things. Firstly it would explain how the P.A. report was able to include the information in his third report that the victim was a 21 year old woman of genteel appearance who had recently separated from a man she was living.

It would also explain how Lewis was able to tell the LWN reporter that, at about 11am on Friday morning, he "heard that Kelly had been found in her room murdered." Initially I thought this might be him doing some historical revisionism and that he had initially only heard about the murder, finding out later that it was Kelly. But, in the period before the police arrived, no doubt the word did spread among local residents - from either McCarthy or Bowyer - that it was Kelly who had been found dead.

What are the consequences of all this?

Firstly, it makes it very odd that Lewis did not, apparently, mention his 8am sighting, for which he must have been reasonably famous, when he spoke to the LWN reporter. Even odder - and certainly suspicious - is that he did not mention the 10am sighting when he spoke to the Evening Post representative. For that reason, it does appear that he had adopted someone else's story when he spoke to the LWN reporter.

However, I'm not sure it changes very much. We now have confirmation that "two women" claimed to have seen Kelly drinking in a public house with a man at around 10am. Surely these women were the source for the story in the P.A. report and in the Globe about that. Neither of them can be Mrs Maxwell who never claimed to have seen Kelly drinking with anyone.

It should be noted, however, that Lewis is our only source that Kelly had been seen drinking in the Britannia as opposed to any other local public house.

With the women being unidentified it might explain why the police never found them. If they were prostitutes they might not have wanted to come forward or reveal their names to the press. Perhaps this is why Lewis told their story for them (???).

The reliability of this source is very low. First we have the "young man" McCarthy and his mother (!) opening the front door and seeing a body "lying in the passage" then we have Morris Lewis seeing "the woman" and thereafter it is "one man" who saw "Kelly".

The journalist is confused, he is guessing and he is getting events as well as people mixed up.

So we can NOT conclude from this source that: "We now have confirmation that "two women" claimed to have seen Kelly drinking in a public house with a man at around 10am."

The reliability of this source is very low. First we have the "young man" McCarthy and his mother (!) opening the front door and seeing a body "lying in the passage" then we have Morris Lewis seeing "the woman" and thereafter it is "one man" who saw "Kelly".

The journalist is confused, he is guessing and he is getting events as well as people mixed up.

So we can NOT conclude from this source that: "We now have confirmation that "two women" claimed to have seen Kelly drinking in a public house with a man at around 10am."

You are the one who is confused Pierre, showing you know nothing about how a newspaper was put together in 1888.

The Evening Post report in its Special Edition of 9 November 1888 was a mixture of Agency reports (including one from the Press Association) and information obtained from its own representative in Whitechapel. So picking out inconsistencies in the report as a whole and concluding from those inconsistencies that "The journalist is confused" simply makes you look ridiculous, especially for someone who purports to be a "historian".

You are the one who is confused Pierre, showing you know nothing about how a newspaper was put together in 1888.

The Evening Post report in its Special Edition of 9 November 1888 was a mixture of Agency reports (including one from the Press Association) and information obtained from its own representative in Whitechapel. So picking out inconsistencies in the report as a whole and concluding from those inconsistencies that "The journalist is confused" simply makes you look ridiculous, especially for someone who purports to be a "historian".

I think Abby makes a very good point about the fire. I agree it could have been lit for heat rather than light, however, this would be even more likely if Kelly was killed at night rather than, say, after 10:00am when it would presumably have been warmer.

You suggest that the killer may have mutilated Kelly whilst naked, i.e. to avoid getting covered in blood. However, if she was killed by JtR I just don't see him as being that organized. Thus, in the previous murders he clearly didn't take similar precautions-implying that he was unconcerned about the risk- even though Chapman may well have been murdered at a time when the neighbourhood would presumably have been busy with people leaving for work, and at a time when it was relatively light, which would have greatly increased the probability that someone would have noticed the blood and gore.

You are the one who is confused Pierre, showing you know nothing about how a newspaper was put together in 1888.

The Evening Post report in its Special Edition of 9 November 1888 was a mixture of Agency reports (including one from the Press Association) and information obtained from its own representative in Whitechapel. So picking out inconsistencies in the report as a whole and concluding from those inconsistencies that "The journalist is confused" simply makes you look ridiculous, especially for someone who purports to be a "historian".

No, David. You do not understand what I am saying.

But since you claim to understand more than i do, perhaps you are able to answer two simple questions?

1) Is the newspaper reporter (referred to as their representative) in the article the same person who created the statement about the "young man" McCarthy and his mother opening the front door and seeing a body "lying in the passage"?

2) Is he also the same person who came up with the statement of Kelly having been seen in a public-house, drinking with a man?

Let me be crystal clear that I was only saying it is equally possible that it was for heat as much as light. The windows of Mary's room were blocked with curtains and, with no light source in the room, during a gloomy morning, a fire would have been useful for light too in what must have been a dark room. In other words, the existence of the fire in no way assists us as to the time of death.

But since you claim to understand more than i do, perhaps you are able to answer two simple questions?

1) Is the newspaper reporter (referred to as their representative) in the article the same person who created the statement about the "young man" McCarthy and his mother opening the front door and seeing a body "lying in the passage"?

2) Is he also the same person who came up with the statement of Kelly having been seen in a public-house, drinking with a man?

I understand what you are saying perfectly well, Pierre, as the following answers to your questions should make clear to you:

1. No, the source for that was a Press Association report (the one I have referred to as the third report of 9 November).

2. I wouldn't have used the phrase "came up with" myself but, yes, the Evening Post representative was the source for the sentence: "Two women aver that they saw her in a public-house, drinking with a man."